Author Archives: communityethics.org

The Grace and Patience of the Sower

Posted on by
Reply

3 “Listen to this! Behold, the sower went out to sow; 4 as he was sowing, some seed fell beside the road, and the birds came and ate it up. 5 Other seed fell on the rocky ground where it did not have much soil; and immediately it sprang up because it had no depth of soil. 6 And after the sun had risen, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away.7 Other seed fell among the thorns, and the thorns came up and choked it, and it yielded no crop. 8 Other seeds fell into the good soil, and as they grew up and increased, they yielded a crop and produced thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold.” 9 And He was saying, “He who has ears to hear, [a]let him hear.”

- Mark 4:3-9

                The story of the sower is a very well known parable that Jesus told. And although there are many interpretations, I have hardly come across one that emphasizes the model of grace and patience within this passage. In this short article I argue that much can be taken away from this parable about the grace and patience of God. It stands as a great example of the grace of Christ and the patience he practiced during His ministry. Once we dig in, we begin to see a model of how we, as believers, ought to bring the gospel to the world: with grace and patience.

In ancient times, the method of planting went like this: when a sower went out to sow his seed, he would take the raw seeds and toss them onto the bare ground. Throwing them from place to place, the seeds would be strewn. After the seed had been spread, the farmer would then plow the ground so that the seeds would be covered with soil.  Then when the rains came, the seeds would be watered all the same, and the ones in good soil would germinate, take root, and grow to be a part of the fruitful harvest for the farmer. What I find so interesting about this parable is that the farmer could not possibly tell which seed fell on fertile or sterile ground. The good and bad ground could only be identified when it was time for the harvest.

In 1st Corinthians 3:6, Paul tries to straighten up a misunderstanding being debated by the Corinthians. It seems that some of the Corinthians were at odds with the different schools of thought. They apparently thought that Apollos and Paul were teaching two different types of Christianity, and that there was a distinction between the two schools of thought. But Paul informs them that both him and Apollos were mere workers for the Lord – they were merely humans who brought the real message, the truth on which they agreed: Christ crucified and resurrected.

5 What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. 7 So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth. 8 Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own [b]reward according to his own labor.

– 1st Corinthians 3:5-8 (NASB)

This excerpt from 1st Corinthians shows us that each and every one has a hand in the different stages of the harvest. Paul here says that he planted the seeds, but then Apollos watered them – and ultimately God caused the growth. We are often not asked by God to be there for someone every single step of the way. God is the only one that is expected to be there for someone every step of the way, aiding the growth and health of the sprouting and growing seed. For some this is a big relief because the thought of having such an influence over someone’s moral decisions would seem to be a never-ending battle, and therefore a burden. But for others, the fact that we cannot be there to influence others’ moral decisions is a disappointment. Call it “too much” love – call it what you will; it is a simple fact that some people just want to influence the moral decisions of others because they feel that they know what the other person ought to do. But this is not in line with what this parable tells us. In fact, it simply tells us to spread the seeds, and then let the spirit work. It tells us to bring the gospel, and then allow Christ to work in the lives of the areas we just sowed.

As Americans we suffer from individuality. It runs rampant throughout our churches and in our lives. It is this attitude that we know what’s best for us, but not only that, we also sometimes think we know what is best for others. We tend to be a little more gracious toward ourselves – minimizing our downfalls and shortcomings, and then being a little less gracious toward those who do not seem to see it our way. Although this is what we could consider the norm, Scripture tells us to act differently. Scripture tells us to be a living sacrifice – literally and figuratively – to allot the grace to others that Christ allotted to us on the cross – even if that grace would come in the form of giving up our very own lives.

Perhaps one of the best examples of the misuse of our assertiveness can be found in the story of Job. After Job’s situation had deteriorated, his wife and three friends weighed in. His wife simply told him to curse God and die, and his friends advised him that his suffering was because he was being punished by God. But none of their advice was right – Job knew this from the start. In fact, Job’s naysayers should have just let it alone and allowed Job to work it out with God. They should have just set still and allowed God to work.

This is what we, as American Christians, face in such a politically charged atmosphere: the temptation to step in and try to turn God’s time table into our own time table – whether this be concerning fellow Christians or those outside of the church. Whoever it is directed toward, we have to stop it. We have to shift our focus to ministering to others without trying to forcefully convert them or persuade them to do things according to our own moral convictions – we have to allow the spirit to work. We have to give up the heretical thought that being a follower of Christ can be reduced down to following a list of stagnant, strict laws, and allow it to become what it actually is: a living, growing community of servants focused on exemplifying the love of God. Like the sower that plants the seed and allows another to water, we have to stop trying to create convictions we have for other people’s actions. Otherwise we are manufacturing a false religion, and therefore making a mockery of the God we very much love.

I agree that it sounds scary. If we were to be honest, some questions we’d ask would be: wouldn’t this mean that we should just give up on telling people when they’re wrong; and if we can’t tell them their wrong, then how will they hear the gospel message? I assure you that this is not the end of the line. The world will hear the gospel of Jesus Christ more so through our actions than the words we speak. John 13:35 says: “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Thomas Jay Oord, professor of theology, defines love this way: “To love is to act intentionally, in sympathetic/empathetic response to God and others, to promote overall well-being.” Love is a verb, as John Mayer once put it. But most importantly, love intentionally seeks to promote the overall well-being of others. And it remains that the well-being of another person can be best found in what God is asking them to do, and not what we feel like they should be doing.

I realize that it takes a lot of faith on our part to know that the spirit will convict without our extra oompf in convicting others. But we all can’t always be the ones that are watering and planting – some of us need to water and some of us need to plant, to do both is to play God. Plus, it would wear us down. But then this doesn’t mean that we stop keeping others accountable. Paul tells us clearly in 1st Corinthians 5:12 “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are [we] not to judge those inside?” Therefore, as a church we are called to keep accountable those in our community who claim to be living out the teachings of Christ – as opposed to those of the world.

Yes, it does take faith and self control to let go and allow the Spirit to work, but it’s necessary. Once we learn to refrain from making the moral decisions of others, for others, and allow the spirit to work – especially those of the world – it allows God to work through others, a little at a time but full time, and turn something that we thought was going to wither and die into a beautiful tree, bearing much fruit.

The Myth of America: A Christian Nation

Posted on by
Reply

christiannation

I tend to have qualms with a lot of mainstream Christian belief, mainly because its belief structure is most likely to simply set aside critical thought so as to reverberate and regurgitate the theological echo often heard by celebrity charismatic Christian leaders…maybe my problem is with the leaders – maybe not. I admit, I do get annoyed with the screams of condemnation – the condemnation of the world outside of the church and not the world that is going on inside of the church. I get the fact that people get sidetracked and confused. Sometimes people are brought up a certain way in which they are unwilling, and scarier: unable to see where they are going wrong. So my concern is not necessarily with the people as much as it is with the (false) message preached by the mainstream.

One of the most significant topics often confused or misrepresented in American Christianity is nationalism. The thought usually goes something like this: the United States was founded upon Christian principles; therefore, the United States is a Christian nation. Or sometimes in addition to this, some would say that the United States was founded by a very Christian people, therefore, the United States was meant to be and therefore is a Christian nation. This talk seems to always develop into the message that America should come back to its Christian roots. America should turn away from the evils that it is doing, submit to God, and become a Christian nation, again. But what if the United States wasn’t a Christian nation to begin with? What if the country we thought was so Christian, in fact, was dreadfully sinful throughout its existence? Many do not want to admit it, but that is the case. The founding and building of the United States was on horrifically sinful terms – justified by competition between many proud, drunk, rich, white, landowning men who slaughtered Native Americans in order to possess land that would eventually lead to them profiting off the backs of traded slave labor.

The average mainstream Christians want to ignore this, or pass it off as some sort of liberally biased history, but it’s the truth. The majority of those who held the power and wealth during the revolutionary times were the same people trading slaves, raping and having babies with their maids, and killing Native Americans because they stood in their way of making a profit. There is no other way around it; America was never founded on Christian values because in order to be founded upon the values of Christ the actions of those considered to be founders ought to have mimicked the actions of Christ – they did not. And herein lays the problem:  the vast majority of those who played a large role in the founding and building of America lacked the willingness to untie profits and self-interest from their moral compass, and therefore saw nothing wrong or immoral with the slaughter of a disturbing amount of innocent victims (Native Americans) as well as the abuse and oppression of an entire group of people (African Americans). The founding of this country had a lot to do with competition. There is nothing wrong with competition, insofar as it does not lead to the production of pride: or, in the words of Augustine: “the love of one’s own excellence.” But pride in Augustine’s sense is the natural product of economic competition. This type of competition breeds pride in the sense that our happiness and joy are derived from the thought that we better than someone else. The goal of economic competition is rooted in this idea that others are just things to overcome, outsell, and outshine. And this is the very reason our country was not founded upon Christian principles. It was founded upon liberal Capitalism disguised as religious rhetoric.

So when I hear the nostalgic thought or saying that we ought to return to the good ole days – the days when America used to be a Christian nation, I am unaffected by the sentiment. And, to be honest, I am only disgusted by the idea that a nation has anything to do with how God works – God will work, when and where he wants to work, regardless if we “allow” Him in our spaces and places or not. So now you know why I get upset when we refer to the Christian church of America as simply “America” – implying that the Christian church ought to include those who have rejected the church outright and for all it stands, as if it is our job as a church to condemn the world for being the world.

12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13 But those who are outside, God judges… - 1 Corinthians 5:12-13

 

Greg Boyd: Myth of A Christian Nation Part 1

Greg Boyd: Myth of A Christian Nation Part 2

Greg Boyd: Myth of A Christian Nation Part 3

Pharisees: A Lesson for Us All

Posted on by
Reply

Pharisees in Jesus’ day made hefty demands of those they led, burdening followers heavily with demands that they, the Pharisees themselves, were unwilling to take on. They were extremely rigid in requiring that all people follow what the law says: pay taxes, give of their property, comply with every little part and piece of the law. And conveniently for them, they would be off indulging themselves, bearing very little of the weight that they expected out of others, and lending them very little aid in the perseverance of their people.[1]

And if the deeds they did command of others were carried out, they did so only so that they would be noticed by others. They loved to be given the lead of a synagogue service, to be the main man: to be seen as a high-and-mighty follower of Christ, to rub elbows with the who’s who of wherever they are. And last but not least, they loved being known as the preacher or teacher. They were hooked on the power that it gave them.

But when we really break it down, it comes to a problem of power. The Pharisees were empowered by the impossibility of the law – so much so that they began to play the role of God by not practicing what they preached. Practicing what you preach is like God’s control mechanism. The more of your beliefs that you put into action the better you get at empathizing with those in the same situation. But that is what the Pharisees could not do – empathize or allot grace to their followers – simply because they were not practicing what they were preaching.

And this is exactly what we, as Christians, have been doing for nearly three-quarters of a century. We seem to be quick to tell others what they are doing wrong rather than reaching out as Christ has called us to reach out:

30Jesus replied and said, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, and they stripped him and beat him, and went away leaving him half dead. 31“And by chance a priest was going down on that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32“Likewise a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33“But a Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion, 34and came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35“On the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I return I will repay you.’ 36“Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers’ hands?” 37And he said, “The one who showed mercy toward him.” Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do the same.”

                                                    Luke 10:30-37

This parable was as real as it could seem. Nothing about it made it sound as if Jesus was telling a made up story. The road between Jerusalem and Jericho was very dangerous. The Jewish historian Josephus wrote that Herod let loose 40,000 workers who were building the temple and many of them became highway men – the very robbers spoken of in the parable. There was thought to be no less than 12,000 priests and Levites in Jericho. And so the chances that a priest would pass by while this man lay half dead in the street was very good. But, the Godly man just walked by, he made no effort to even go ask if the other needed help. The same happened with the Levite – he came and looked at the man a little more intently than the priest, but then continued on the other side of the road, doing nothing more than leaving him for dead. But then along comes the Samaritan.

The Jews and Samaritans had no dealings with each other. They were absolute enemies. The Jews saw the Samaritans as blasphemers. The Samaritans’ claim to the Jewish religion only stoked the fire under the Jews. But here was Jesus telling a story to a Jewish lawmaker that shoved all of those presumptions in his face. After all, how could it end up that both fellow Jews – faithful, law following Jews – just pass by one of their kind. But, then, the last person on earth thought to provide help – a half-breed Samaritan – stopped to assist the dying man.

The premise of the parable is the question: who is your neighbor? And here is a man, someone more than just a Samaritan. Here is a man who overcame the hostility between the two groups of people – an absolute disgust between them – and denied himself to help the other. But this wasn’t just some sort of hurry-up band-aid job to get the half-dead Jew on his way. Jesus was describing someone who did much more than what was expected or necessary – even if it were the priest or the Levite doing the ”patchwork.” Because not only did he give him medical attention, but he took him to an inn to get rest and made sure that he recovered. He gave the inn keeper ten-times as much as what his visit would cost – as well as assuring him that if there were any additional cost, that he would be back to compensate him for those too.

There are two main points that I want to make. Firstly, as a person and church in our society, we must be like the Samaritan when he denied himself, stopped to help, and took the man to the inn because that is what Christ looks like. And by this I mean that we ought to strive to allot others the grace of God that they need, because they are so depraved in the sight of God – as we all are. Homosexuals, alcoholics, the greedy, the proud, the too-critical, the lazy, you, me – we are all depraved and undeserving people who need the grace of God. We need the grace of God to not only allow us to work on what God is asking us to work on in our own lives, but also to allow God to work His will in the lives of others without our casting judgement and discouraging them from seeking the will of God. Secondly, as a person and church in our society, we must be like the Samaritan when he told the inn keeper that whatever is needed to get him back to health, he was willing to pay.  By this I mean that we need to be ready and willing, as God continues to do with us, to allot others – no matter who they are or what issues they have – whatever grace is necessary to bring them up out of their place of need.

“‘Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.’”

John 15:13

A Biblical Account of Immigration

Posted on by
Reply

The Bible says much on immigration. So instead of me blabbing, telling you why the bible says what it says, I’m just going to let the Bible speak for itself:

Leviticus 19:33-34 NASB

‘When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD  your God.

Matthew 25:35 NASB

For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in;

Exodus 22:21 NASB

“You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.

Malachi 3:5 NASB

“Then I will draw near to you for judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers and against the adulterers and against those who swear falsely, and against those who oppress the wage earner in his wages, the widow and the orphan, and those who turn aside the alien and do not fear Me,” says the LORD  of hosts.

Deuteronomy 27:19 NASB

‘Cursed is he who distorts the justice due an alien, orphan, and widow.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’

Zechariah 7:9-10 NASB

“Thus has the LORD  of hosts said, ‘Dispense true justice and practice kindness and compassion each to his brother; and do not oppress the widow or the orphan, the stranger or the poor; and do not devise evil in your hearts against one another.’

Jeremiah 7:5-7 NASB

For if you truly amend your ways and your deeds, if you truly practice justice between a man and his neighbor,  if  you do not oppress the alien, the orphan, or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place, nor walk after other gods to your own ruin, then I will let you dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers forever and ever.

Ezekiel 47:22 NASB

You shall divide it by lot for an inheritance among yourselves and among the aliens who stay in your midst, who bring forth sons in your midst. And they shall be to you as the native-born among the sons of Israel; they shall be allotted an inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel.

Leviticus 25:35 NASB

‘Now in case a countryman of yours becomes poor and his means with regard to you falter, then you are to sustain him, like a stranger or a sojourner, that he may live with you.

Deuteronomy 10:18 NASB

He executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and shows His love for the alien by giving him food and clothing.

Matthew 5:46-47 NASB

For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?  If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?

Matthew 5:40-42 NASB

If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.  Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.  Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.

Hebrews 13:2 NASB

Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained angels without knowing it.

Psalm 137:1-9 NASB

By the rivers of Babylon,
There we sat down and wept,
When we remembered Zion.

Upon the willows in the midst of it
We hung our harps.

For there our captors demanded of us songs,
And our tormentors mirth,  saying, 
“Sing us one of the songs of Zion.”

How can we sing the LORD ‘S  song
In a foreign land?

If I forget you, O Jerusalem,
May my right hand forget  her skill. 
May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth
If I do not remember you,
If I do not exalt Jerusalem
Above my chief joy.

Remember, O LORD , against the sons of Edom
The day of Jerusalem,
Who said, “Raze it, raze it
To its very foundation.”

O daughter of Babylon, you devastated one,
How blessed will be the one who repays you
With the recompense with which you have repaid us.

How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones
Against the rock.

The Religious Right, Part I: A (Very) Brief & Concise History

Posted on by
Reply

“Because the American Civil War was not a war of religion, historians have tended to overlook the degree to which it was a religious war. Union and Confederate soldiers alike were heirs of the Great Awakening. Civil War armies were, arguably, the most religious in American history.”1

It is often said by southerners that their memory is “haunted by God.” Nothing exemplifies this thought more than the sermons of southern clergy during the Civil War period. From Montgomery to Richmond, many of the orators highlighted ghostly stories and analogies, and Old Testament places to proclaim the strength and “chosenness” of the South. This attitude of being a chosen people 2 is ultimately highlighted in what historians term the Lost Cause of the Confederacy.

The Lost Cause of the Confederacy is a denial that the powers of the North defeated the South through matters of skill – that the South’s defeat came because the North came with such overwhelming force that there was no amount of skill that could lead them to victory. This denial persisted for centuries. And, in fact, the mind set of being a loosely organized state of “successful covenant makers and keepers” has led to “Southern Culture” holding a deeply held belief that Southerners simply could not and would not ever be beaten – religiously or politically. 3

In the years leading up to the 1830′s, the prominent denominations involved in missions to the South were the Baptists and Methodists. In order for these denominations to evangelize in Dixie, they had to change their positions on those issues that Southerners would have perceived as “radical” – such as their opposition to slavery and the northern hostility toward a social structure that based the value of a person to society on their respective economic class.

One of the first things northerners did was utilize the relationship between Christianity and supernaturalism by cultivating the South’s on the mystical / spiritual / experiential side of Christianity (which would later pave the way for a fast growing Pentecostal movement). This evangelization of the South by the North, literally led to the Southernization of Northern evangelicalism. Northerners didn’t just change to a group preaching a more experiential gospel, they changed their teachings and practices to reach them – especially those dealing with the roles of men and women, the old and young, and white and black. As if they had not compromised enough, the Northern evangelists had to change their view on how Scripture would be interpreted: literally. It was how slavery was justified in the South; it was how idolizing the rich was justified in the South; it was how the melding of church and state was justified in the South. 4

By the 1890′s holiness-focused Methodists were defecting in search of churches that focused on God’s grace through a personal experience rather than a religious experience through a priest. It was also during this time that baptists began taking over the South – ultimately passing the Methodists by national measures in 1906. At the turn of the 20th-century, holiness churches were thriving, and Fundamentalism and Pentecostalism – whose presence was beginning to swell unknowingly in the South – began to grow swiftly.

The explosion of growth in Fundamentalist, Pentecostal, and holiness churches largely went unnoticed due to many publicized embarrassments. The poster child for these mishaps is unequivocally the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925. This negative light led to a reformation of the approach Fundamentalists took in reaching America – and during this time they implemented radio gospel hours, more church fellowships, and Bible institutes. Pentecostals were so engulfed in revivalism and reaching others during this time that the Great Depression and WWII were hardly a concern to them, with many of their journals speaking of wonderful, miraculous workings of God.

By January 1950 the evangelist Billy Graham had developed a cult following for his “Crusades” – a rather historically grotesque choice of a name for a group of Christians traveling across the world on a mission from God.

He probably should have rethought the name. Just sayin’.

Bringing crowds of fifty-thousand or more listeners to wherever he spoke, his Crusades welcomed similar sized crowds at any given event. The combination of the growth of holiness, Pentecostal, and Fundamentalist churches, and a 1950′s and 60′s focus on revivalism led to an explosion of new congregants in what would ultimately make up the Religious Right of the 1970′s.

Reorganizing the Republican Party

As the Johnson administration wound down, the focus on eradicating poverty did as well. The vision of the poor cast by the media as latter-day Daniel Boones perched high upon a mountain was replaced by the more menacing image of poor, black, and urban. The postwar era led to whites moving out into suburbia which led to blacks becoming more densely populated in the urban areas. White property owners saw their real estate values plummet, and white renters saw their rent sky-rocket as their landlords try to keep their property values up by keeping blacks out of the neighborhoods. This re-imaging of the face and identity of the “person” of poverty only highlighted the feelings and views of Southern white working-class taxpayers and property owners. They absolutely despised the war on poverty. They saw it as a handout for “welfare queens” and “poverty pimps.”  5

Coming out in the mid-1960′s and highlighting the end to a concern for and goodwill towards the poor was the bumper sticker Reading:

“I Fight Poverty, I Work.”

It is no secret that Nixon’s capitalization on the racial conflict happening with the civil rights movement of the 60′s made him president.6 In his coming to the White House, he had a record as a racial moderate, endorsing legislation from the time he was Eisenhower’s vice president up to when he was elected president in 1969. Although well marked as a proponent for Civil Rights, for his time, Nixon embraced a “southern strategy” which would not only get him reelected in 1972, but ultimately create a Republican majority in the U.S. During his first term, Nixon’s strategy was to focus on the issues that divided the Democrats instead of those that united Republicans. This allowed for a wedge to be driven between two of the most important groups in the Democratic Party: religious southerners, and blacks.

The Church and Segregation

“I don’t care what they say in Washington, we are going to keep right on praying and reading the Bible in the public schools of Alabama.”

George Wallace

During the 1960′s the desegregation of public schools coincided with the Supreme Court decision that prayer and other displays of religious belief was to be restricted in public schools. This spurred many denominations in America to draw an acute focus on establishing and building avenues for private education. No other place was this more apparent than in the working-class of the South. These institutions, because of the absence of color, were termed “segregation academies.”7

But many of these institutions were not openly segregated. Take for example the Briarcrest Baptist School System in Memphis. It was supported by eleven baptist churches affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention denomination. Briarcrest claimed that their enrollment policy was open to all, as well as boasting a recruitment program for black students. But there were no black students enrolled in the school. The issue wasn’t whether or not the school had an open enrollment, but that when the black students got on campus, they faced horrendous discrimination and harassment. A member of an educational task force summed up what was already thought: “These days, Christian schools and segregation academies are almost synonymous.”8

There were a variety of factors that helped explained why these schools were so popular in the south: resentment over stifling of religious expression in schools, overcrowding, the sense that small schools gave parents a sense of say in how it was operated; but another factor, a significant factor, explained why these academies were founded and in operation: to simply perpetuate separatism. It simply allowed them to stand as havens from integration and association with other cultures and colors.9

This was essential to Nixon’s reelection. Nixon noticed that if he were to come out in favor of these “church schools,” leaders in the Democratic Party were stuck. If the Democrats came out against giving money to the schools, then the working-class, religious voters – the segregationists – would feel disenfranchised. But then if the Democrats came out in support of giving money to the schools, then the black and minority vote would be lost. The same is the situation with Nixon’s support of affirmative action during his first term – Democrats faced a wedge being driven down the middle of their party’s politics and it was either the minority vote or the working-class, religious segregationists.

In the end the religious working-class segregationists left the Democratic Party and joined the Republican Party, but it was a slow matriculation. Leading up to the Republican mobilization was a battle considered to be one of the turning points in the political history of America. From it came the impetus to unite the religious working-class segregationists – who would ultimately become the foundation of the Religious Right – to begin to organize and prepare for their fight with the U.S. government.

The IRS v. The Religious Right

The IRS of the Nixon administration began a program that tried to identify which academies supported segregation and which did not. The purpose was to give tax-exempt status only to those schools that had enrollment policies which did not support segregation. After the formal guidelines for qualifying schools were established in 1978, a battle ensued between the supporters of these “church schools” and the IRS. The method that they used led to the IRS excluding these “segregation academies” when it came time to give out tax breaks. But that was the problem, it only excluded them – making it appear that they were being singled out because of who they were. Needless to say, this, paired with the Supreme Court decision over prayer in public schools only guaranteed that the Religious Right would come together and fight back. In fact, it galvanized southern Christians just in time to establish a reputation and mighty political voice to be catered to by Reagan – and every Republican president since then.

accurate in its depiction, Jesusland: the Home of the Religious Right

Making Sense of All This

The focus of this article isn’t necessarily to prove that the Religious Right championed the Republican Party to eventually allow it to become one of its loudest voices, nor is it to prove that the Religious Right are a bunch of racists and separatists. In light of what has been said, one of the most prominent questions that arises is whether or not the attitudes and positions currently held by the Religious Right can be explained by that history. But we first need to establish where the Religious Right actually stands on the issues.

Education

It is no surprise that a prominent focus of the Religious Right has been to introduce curriculum into public schools that support their faith. And because of their past battles with the Supreme Court concerning religious expression in public schools, they not only support giving their private institutions tax-exemption as well as having the freedom to open and operate them as they wish through a voucher system, but they also support the reintroduction of Christian expression into the public school systems (as well as many other public places).

The Ten Commandments

Creationism

Sex Education

The majority of the Religious Right support abstinence-only programs as the way to educate potentially sexually active teens in school. The idea boils down to sexual education for a child is thought to be the duty of the parent and not the school system. Therefore the facts and “methods,” if you will, come directly from the privacy of the child’s home.

Politics of the Religious Right

The topic of war and the Religious Right will be covered in the historical assessment because it is best explained when the historical analysis has been well explained. But to continue, the Religious Right’s view on politics can be summed up with…well, here, this video speaks louder and clearer than anything I could ever say on the topic:

JC

Next: The Religious Right Part II: The Historical Assessment

End Notes
1 – Miller, Stout, and Wilson, Religion and the American Civil War, pp.4-5
2 – This is a well established topic. For more reading: Gospel of Disunion: Religion and Separatism in the Antebellum South (1993), Religion and the American Civil War (1998), Still Fighting the Civil War: The American South and Southern History (2002), Rebuilding Zion: The Religious Reconstruction of the South, 1863-1877 (1998), and Redeeming the South: Religious Cultures and Racial Identities Identities Among Southern Baptists, 1865-1925 (1997).
3 – Kevin Phillips, American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st-Century, (New York: Penguin Books, 2006), pp.141-148.
4 – Christine Heyrman, Southern Cross, (New York: Knopf, 1997), pp. 265-266.
5 – Maurice Isserman & Michael Kazin, America Divided: The Civil War of the 1960s, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), pp.207-209.
6 – Ibid. pp.281
7 – Bruce J. Shulman & Julian E. Zelizer, Rightward Bound: Making America Conservative in the 1970s, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008), pp.96.
8 – Ibid
9 – Ibid, pp.97

Politics, Jesus, and the 2012 Election: An Open Letter

Posted on by
1

I will admit, most of the people I make contact with when talking politics are normally conservative. And because of my incessant focus on liberal politics, many of you have also found zero grounds for agreeing with me on any issue. But that’s okay, I am about to separate myself from those pesky liberals too.

Since the presidential election is coming near, I have found it very difficult not to participate in debate after debate on any given social network. I formally apologize for that. I was annoying and tried to argue a position I thought I supported, but after prayer and a swift kick, I am now back to where I feel is the most advantageous (and biblical) position concerning politics for practicing Christians.

The Mennonites have had a long history of going to battle with the state powers of the lands in which they inhabited. This happened simply because they did not believe in acknowledging the state as the authoritative power over them. What is interesting is that they are pacifists, and believe Jesus was a pacifist. Therefore, they do not believe in war or violence, nor do they participate in political rhetoric or vote in any elections. They take “blessed are the peacemakers” literally and seek only to do the will of God. This group (the Mennonites), I believe with my entire heart, are, at least on this one point (and likely a lot more), absolutely correct in their position on how the individual and their church ought to interact with society.

In Luke, Jesus tells us the reason for which he had come:

18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
19     to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

Luke 4:18,19

  1. Proclaim the good news to the poor
  2. Proclaim freedom for prisoners
  3. Heal the sick
  4. Set the oppressed free
  5. Proclaim the favorable year of our Lord

Essentially, these five points can be reduced down to three main objectives:

  • Preach Salvation
  • Deliver those in need (prisoners, the sick, and the oppressed)
  • Proclaim God’s righteous justice

Jesus’ life can be properly highlighted by simply using these three principles. He came to preach the salvation that he brings. He also came to deliver the prisoners, sick, and oppressed. And therefore, by doing these two things, we are proclaiming the judgement of God which Matthew 25:31-46 tells us that we will be judged by how we treat those specific groups of people. Therefore, I feel that as a Christian it is not our place to sway the decision on where tax revenue ought to go or what laws ought to be passed, but that we should focus our attention and efforts on those groups of people that Mt. 25:31-46 tells us are, in fact, Christ (the hungry and thirsty, the stranger, the needy, the sick and imprisoned).

The reason we ought to be subordinate to the state is because its powers are God-ordained. Therefore, any intervention of ours goes against actual God-ordained power, and is, therefore, rebellion against God and the plan he is asking us to live through. This, then, also means that a country like the United States, who achieved independence by  rebelling from Britain, is founded upon nothing but the disobedience of God’s plan – it was not God-ordained that the U.S. become a superpower, but from a sinful stroke of disobedience.

Jesus was a Pacifist and a peacemaker. There are very few verses which appear to go against the idea that Jesus was a pacifist. I will spare you of the analysis of the many passages and just focus on the most popular one. It can be found in John 2:13-15:

13 When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.

The logic goes: Jesus made a whip and used it to drive the money changers out of the temple, plus he forcefully overturned their tables. Therefore, in doing this, Jesus could not have been a pacifist. But that is not what the verse says, and plenty of scholars back me up on this. When the grammar of verse 15 is executed correctly, it says that Jesus made a whip out of chords, and drove the sheep, cattle, and all of the rest of the animals out of the temple. Then he dumped the money changers’ money on the ground, and overturned their tables. He simply created a disturbance to make his point. That’s it. It was not a violent act, nor could it have been seen as an act of aggression or he would have (very) quickly been arrested and taken to court by the Roman guards. But Jesus wasn’t just a pacifist in the way he acted, but he was also a political pacifist (but not a political passivist).

A good example of this reluctance of Jesus to be pinned to any political group can be found in Mark 12:13-17:

 

 

 

 

13 Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. 14 They came to him and said,
But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.”16 They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”“Teacher, we know that you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay the imperial tax[a] to Caesar or not? 15 Should we pay or shouldn’t we?”

“Caesar’s,” they replied.

17 Then Jesus said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”

And they were amazed at him.

Unless you’re some sort of scholar, you need some background on this passage. The Herodians were the group of religious people that wanted a very close relationship with Rome (and Herod). The Pharisees were the opposite. They wanted no part of Rome in their religion, they would rather have died than to allow Rome to infiltrate their group. So, here Jesus faces these two groups of very political people – call them the liberal and conservatives of our time. Both knowing very well where denying Rome their right to collect taxes would lead, they approached him with a question: should we support an evil man by willingly giving him our money, or should we disobey him, and thus not support an evil man, by not paying the taxes? And what does Jesus say? Whose money is it? It’s got Caesar’s face on it, give it to him if he wants it, it’s his. But, when it comes to those things that are God’s, make sure you give God what He asks of you too.

Jesus clearly defines two separate kingdoms: the earthly, and the Godly. We are subordinate to the Godly kingdom which is being worked out by God through the earthly kingdoms – he needs no help from us. He’s got it, I’m sure.

So, again, I apologize for jumping on the political bandwagon. It just took me a few kicks in the rump and a lot of thinking to really realize that I’m not accomplishing anything at all debating with the same people, simply as a test of wits. I need to be out there in the real world, getting my hands dirty and not causing so much stress, anxiety, and anger for other people.

And so, as would likely follow from this blog entry, I am purposely withholding my vote because regardless of who is in charge, and how bad it gets, I am called to be subordinate to that leader. Interrupting God’s plan because it would be advantageous to me asserts my power in place of trusting the power of God to do the same.

I do not expect you to agree with my decision, in fact, I expect most to disagree. But I do expect you to respect my decision to do this because I am earnestly doing what I think is right in the eyes of God. Peace, grace, and thanks in Christ to all.

JC

Political Qualms Part I

Posted on by
Reply

It isn’t too often that I open up and just allow my thoughts to seep through. In fact it’s not normal for me. I am naturally a person that keeps to myself … for the most part. Now, I know that some of you have experienced me confronting others by expressing my, what could be seen as quirky, opinion. Well, this blog entry is different. This time I’m just going to think out loud. I’m just going to attempt to get off my chest what has been there for a very long time – particularly about politics and the religion of politics. There might be instances where you read what I’m writing, but notice I am contradicting myself. I’m okay with that. I’m not trying to make a right or wrong argument here. I’m just trying to get some stuff off my chest that has been there for so long, unexpressed, that I just need to get it out.

So, here it goes…

The two major political parties in the US are an oligarchy. That means that those two groups own the majority of the political voice within the market they share – they own the majority of the stake of the political market (and it is a market.) Because they co-own the majority stake, they also dictate the two major positions that arise when hot topics come to light. Although if I thought about it long enough, the fact that there is such a conglomerate owning the political voice in the US may upset me, but that’s not my qualm. No, my problem is with the relative inconsistencies – across the board and

with both parties – with arguments given to justify the many positions of the left and right. So, I have decided to write a series with how many ever “Parts” to simply spout off my qualms with both sides. Out of fairness for my recent activity (trying to point out flaws of the conservative view) I will start with Liberals.

LIBERALS AND ABORTION

Okay, I will admit it: you’re rocking it out when you stand up for minorities, you know, the lowly – that’s straight Jesus stuff, right there. And you do have something going with fighting to protect the rights of the individual. After all, there can only be so much a group of people can do to an individual before it’s time to say “okay, that’s enough.” And your focus on educating the masses…man, I got to hand it to you, I do love me some smart people and some intelligent conversation. And your humor and willingness to test the
I don’t understand how you can justify abortion as a choice. The organism is a living being. There is no biological stage that has been defined scientifically that compares to the tadpole-to-frog scenario. That is, one that biologically defines two separate organisms – where at one point the organism is not human and then another point the organism becomes a human. The terms currently used to draw attention away from the real issue simply describe one long, connected process of becoming human, mentioning nothing of a stage, like the tadpole, where the organism is something other than human. Therefore, if at conception human life begins, how on God’s green earth does the human, at any stage of the process, become nonhuman enough for it to be okay to eliminate its life?lines, again,; amazing…but that’s about the extent with which I really agree – OH, SNAP – yeah, I’m going there.

If it’s a human life, is there really a conflict of ethical choice to be made in non-emergency situations? I mean, what scientific ethical principle exists that absolves the act of murder at the embryonic stage and not at, say, the infant or toddler stage? If it’s okay for a woman to choose to eliminate the embryo because it is her body and thus, her choice, would that, then, justify the mother selling the flesh of the aborted fetus as a commodity? I’m serious. I’m not trying to be gross or controversial here. It is an honest question. Maybe I have on my blinders, but I cannot see the topic of abortion as a logical matter of choice, lest we justify infanticide, or cannibali…er…non? cannibalism. Thoughts?

JC

Chick-Fil-A: Loving Our Enemy

Posted on by
Reply

It was said today, at one point in time, that if someone supports Chick-Fil-A they also are supporting a hate group. I am one who needs time to think about my position when it comes to hot-button topics. This was not any different.

I hate when people ask me questions and it turns out that my answers were not well thought out. It always makes me feel like a complete idiot. I try not to do that very often. So, I have remained relatively quiet about this whole Chick-Fil-A issue…until this Facebook post:

“So…here’s a question for those who are boycotting Chick-fil-A. When are you going to sell your cars and walk everywhere you go? Never fly again, avoid public transportation? What? You mean you will still continue to do these things? Didn’t you know that every penny you spend on fuel goes to ACTUAL

HATE GROUPS. The people we get our fuel from KILL homosexuals but yet you still continue to give them your money? I am so sick of people calling Chick-fil-a and the groups they support hate groups…Just because I don’t like the fact that someone chooses to wear black and blue in the same outfit doesn’t mean that I hate that person. Even if I gave my profits to a group that is against the mixing of the colors….you can’t put words in my mouth and call me a

hater…”

While I find it hard to believe that “…every penny” we spend on fuel goes to hate groups, I can agree that 3 of the top 5 oil exporters are regimes that violently oppose homosexuality (Iran, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates). I could probably also guess that the poster on Facebook and I disagree on which roles the government and the church should take in a society. Aside from that, though, I do have to say that she does have a point.

Buying gas is out of the question if we are truly concerned about our money supporting hate groups and do not want to be hypocritical about our spending. In fact, she is right that 3 of the 5 top exporters of oil support and/or use violence against homosexuals (the Saudi’s, Iran, and the UAE). These countries have a far more extreme standard for punishing those who are “caught” in the act of homosexuality.

This brings me to my point: just because you don’t see something doesn’t mean it just *POOF* goes away.

The Chick-Fil-A issue is just a drop in the bucket when compared to the widespread support we all contribute to on a much larger scale because of our over-dependence upon oil.

To me, all this hype has simply become a resounding gong of intolerance. Unless you are literally dead, you, in some way, support (enormously, I might add) hate groups that do much more damage to the human rights of homosexuals than does Dan Cathy and him monotonously expressing an opinion that was already very-well and very-much known.

We are all hypocrites in this situation. Yeah, Dan Cathy may have a traditional / biblical view about church and state, but it is far from the stoning of two homosexuals which happened in Iran – whose economy is dependent upon our dependence upon oil.

We’re all being so stupid and naive about the real problem. We are people who support hate groups that are upset with people who support hate groups. The fact that we do not know that the fuel we buy comes from Iran or Saudi Arabia or UAE does not excuse us from the more prevalent fact that by buying that fuel we are supporting regimes that commit far more heinous acts of hate than someone expressing an opinion that was previously known.

The truth remains that we should all be spurred to stop the nonsense of using aggressive measures (competitive boycotting, name-calling, and my personal pet-peeve: using labels like “homophobe” in nonsensical ways…), and sit down to a non-confrontational conversation with our other side and actually talk, and not spat, about this stuff instead of simply pointing fingers, bullying, and trying to cause hurt or emotional distress.

I’m just going to be honest here: loving your enemy is as easy as asking him or her out for lunch, just to simply learn more about them. And that’s what we, as Christians, it seems, are not doing. We simply wouldn’t be caught up in all of this finger pointing if we were.